Why America Doesn’t Need another Kennedy in the U.S. Senate

In 1783, the American Revolutionary War came to an end. Victory was had, but it came at a steep price. The outcome was significant. America would be an independent nation, free of monarchy, dynasty, and dictatorship.

Since that time, America has continued to exhibit distaste for dynasty in our political system. With the exception of father and son Adams and Bush, American politics has been largely free of family legacy. While George W. Bush was twice elected President, I would argue there were many concerned about the father-son relationship. On the other side of the isle, America’s lack of interest in a Clinton dynasty was partially responsible for Barack Obama’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary. The thought of the White House being held by a Bush or Clinton for potentially up to 28 years was too much for most Americans to stomach.

With Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent passing, some in the media have suggested that it is unfathomable to imagine a US Senate without a Kennedy in it. Many have urged Kennedy’s widow Vicki or nephew Joe to run for the seat.

In my mind, family dynasties aren’t good for the health of our democratic system long-term. American doesn’t need more Bushs, Clintons, or Kennedys in politics if you ask me. We need more independent, “from scratch” individuals who want to serve their country for the right reasons and aren’t looking for a life in politics.

For the best of America, I for one am hoping to see new blood (and a new name) representing Massachusetts in the US Senate.